Colorado Candidate Intelligence Guide
Need a strategy for your next legislative challenge? Schedule a consultation with Hardball Strategies: https://www.hardballstrategies.com/contact-us
When a legislative issue catches fire, your stakeholders expect an immediate response. They need talking points, executive summaries, and formal memoranda now, not next week.
AI excels at helping you synthesize dense public policy into digestible advocacy tools. It allows you to quickly generate multi-angled materials from a single source of truth:
· Need a comprehensive 5-page brief for a policy director? Done.
· Need to instantly condense that brief into a 3-bullet-point script for a fast-moving lawmaker on the chamber floor? Done.
· Need to pivot that same data into grassroots talking points for an advocacy campaign? Done.
This isn't about letting AI think for you; it’s about using AI to multiply the speed at which your expertise is deployed.
3. The Dangerous Cost of Staying on the Sidelines
An AI-assisted framework for researching candidates for federal and state office..
Examine background, experience, public record, issue positions, campaign context, and the questions that matter to your organization.
Using AI to Analyze Candidates for Public Office
A practical client guide for Colorado federal and state candidates
Use AI as a structured thought partner. It can help you ask better questions, compare reliable information, and see trade-offs. It should not decide your vote. Start with the office, the record, and your own priorities—not a campaign headline. Compare outcomes to your personal values, beliefs, and philosophy.
Start with reliable sources
| Colorado candidates | Colorado campaign finance | Colorado legislative record | Federal campaign finance |
|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado Secretary of State — https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/Candidates/CandidateHome.html | TRACER candidate search — https://tracer.sos.colorado.gov/PublicSite/SearchPages/CandidateSearch.aspx | Colorado General Assembly — https://leg.colorado.gov/legislators and individual bill pages/vote records | Federal Election Commission — https://www.fec.gov/data/ |
Six-step thought-partner process
1 - Identify the office and its real authority — Ask what the winner can actually vote on, sign or veto, administer, appoint, investigate, or influence. Judge candidates against the job they are seeking.
2 - Set your decision lens before comparing people — Name the two or three issues that matter most to you: affordability, public safety, education, health care, business climate, constitutional limits, responsiveness, or another priority.
3 - Gather the record before the rhetoric — For incumbents, review votes, bills, budgets, hearings, committee work, and public explanations. For challengers, review experience, public statements, interviews, and a specific policy agenda.
4 - Compare candidates using the same questions — Give each candidate the same issue questions and sources. Separate verified facts, the candidate's own claims, outside claims, and reasonable inferences.
5 - Test feasibility and second-order effects — Ask what must happen for a promise to become reality: votes, budget authority, agency action, litigation, or cooperation from others. Identify who may benefit, who may bear costs, and unintended consequences.
6 - Verify, then make your own decision — Check important claims against primary sources and the date of the information. Ask AI to state what is unknown or disputed. A strong analysis clarifies your judgment; it does not replace it.
Questions worth asking AI
| Ask this | Why it matters |
|---|---|
| What powers does this office have—and not have? | Keeps the comparison tied to the actual job. |
| What has each candidate done when they held responsibility | Tests performance and judgment, not just promises. |
| What is each candidate's position on [issue], with dated sources? | Shows the difference between a position and an assumption. |
| What evidence supports or challenges this claim? | Separates facts from campaign or opposition messaging. |
| Who supports or finances the campaign, and what does that show—and not show? | Provides context without treating money as a verdict. |
| What would have to happen for this proposal to work? | Tests authority, cost, timing, coalition, and implementation. |
| How responsive has each candidate been to constituents and stakeholders? | Adds accessibility, listening, and follow-through to the analysis. |
Copy-and-paste prompt
Help me evaluate candidates for [OFFICE / DISTRICT] using the official and reliable sources below. First explain what powers this office actually has and whether my questions fit the office. Then compare Candidate A and Candidate B on experience, public record, policy positions, relevant campaign-finance information, and likely effects on [MY PRIORITIES]. Separate verified facts, candidate claims, and reasonable inferences. Test assumptions, feasibility, second-order effects, and what each candidate could realistically accomplish. Give the strongest fair case for each candidate. Identify gaps or uncertainty, list primary sources with dates, and do not tell me whom to vote for. Sources: [PASTE LINKS OR TEXT].
Use AI carefully
Treat a campaign website as the candidate's own position, not as neutral verification.
Ask for direct links, dates, and primary sources; late-breaking developments may not be in an AI answer.
For incumbents, compare statements with votes, bills, hearings, budgets, and constituent service.
Do not upload confidential client information or assume AI output is legal, tax, financial, or election advice.
No candidate will align perfectly. Focus on the few issues and governing qualities that matter most, then make the tradeoffs explicit.
Created by:
The Kyle Group – Hardball Strategies
1410 Grant Street, Suite C313
Denver, Colorado 80203
Cell: 303-263-5422
Email: Ckyle@TheKyleGroup.com
